Anarchist Atheists

Information

ANARCHY! NO GODS! NO MASTERS!

I decided is would be a good idea to make an Anarchist group on Atheist Nexus. This group is not really for Anarcho Capitalist/Free Market Anarchists. This is mainly for Marxist Communist, Anarcho Communist, and pretty much any Anarchy that is not capitalist.

Comment Wall

You need to be a member of Anarchist Atheists to add comments!

The ideology especially for women and minorities is the only true path to liberation...

I think that's BS. The Anarchist "movement" in the US is a white elitists counter-culture of lifestyle anarchists. The "movement" is made up mostly of middle-class white kids rebelling against their skin color or class privilege. What does dressing like a homeless person and not bathing have to do with revolution? Nothing! It's a lifestyle. APOC isn't any different. It's a SCENE. I don't get my information from the mainstream media or books. I came too my conclusions from being politically active.

Well Davo, it is going to take me a couple of posts to cover all your long and informative response so here it goes.

I am not a total adherent to any particular economic system as of the current time, as I can find problems with every one I have so far encountered.

Democracy in any form, direct or indirect is the majority vs. the minority. I am totally aware of the idea of direct democracy, but what keeps the majority from enslaving the minority?

Representative democracy and direct democracy both are majority votes are they not?

So the only real difference between them is who is voting. If you believe that direct voting will reduce corruption, I then believe you are sadly mistaken, as the individual will always vote themselves the greatest advantage at others expense given the option to.

This is why pure collectivism has always failed to work, again it ignores basic human nature. So how do we correct via anarchosyndicalist theory?

As they say democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner and it doesn't matter one bit if they are direct actors or indirect actors, as wolves are always wolves.

Also the Tragedy of the Commons most shining example was not in a capitalist economy, but in a state directed one, in particular Soviet Russia. The communists ruined the ecosystem in a number of ways during their time in power, and it wasn't because the property was privately owned, it was because it was free for exploitation. The concept of the Tragedy of the Commons is directly referring to commonly held property, unowned by any individual and free for the use of all, so I am not understanding your statement that there was not communal ownership because that was one of the few examples of communal ownership in the USA.

So again I ask, what does the collective do if an individual doesn't pull their weight, or refuses to follow the collective? And what mechanisms are in place to, for the lack of a better word, limit the majorities power to abuse the minority?

Ahh I thought something was going wrong here ;) This is why we sometimes do need to delve into these concepts, rather than just 'what we feel comfortable with', but does not actually achieve much else other than create ghettos of people all feeling comfortable with each other. Not that that is a bad thing, but it is not anarchist revolution. I do not think the concepts are difficult, yes for sure the language of many old writers is not one easily accessible, but the concepts put forward are rock solid. It just takes finding the language to discuss when we confront how we are to build constructive and not destructive societies. Basically they must be part of the process, but not govern it for sure.

Direct democracy, via self managed collectives of workers, working together with other collectives in federation, and confederation. You must also remember that anarchosyndicalism is a tactic toward stateless socialism/libertarian communism, it is not a doctrine. It opposes the wage system, using direct action, and self management as a means for creating the building blocks of revolution.

You have missed what democracy is. You are equating it with the common 'representative' democracy. In fact, from this, I take it you agree you are laissez-faire capitalist, as much of what you are saying is exactly the misrepresentations/misunderstandings that come from that arena further in your post. Would I be correct in this presumption? I have quite openly stated that which most closely reflects my belief regarding organisation, it would be great if I was not just put in the position of defending myself without understanding your position to better do so.

Anarcho syndicalism does not have 'an electorate', it has recallable delegates.

To achieve transperancy and accountability anarchosyndicalists practise delegation and mandate of responsibility with the rotation of delegates, the recallability of delegates, federalism and confederalism. Members of an anarcho-syndicalist union practise libertarian, direct democracy in their work place to prepare them for the day when that becomes not merely a group resisting capital, but a workers' council through which production is administered collectively once management, shareholding and other such things have been abolished. It is by us working together not to create an 'electorate', but to freely manage the commons (to use your word, and lead us into your next statement about 'the tragedy of the commons')

The tragedy of the commons is actually the tragedy of the 'free-for-all', that of laissez-faire capitalist economics. The whole concept ignores the fact that the commons in anarchism is collectively managed. Under capitalism there is no common 'property'. Capitalism only recognises private property and free-for-all property. Use rights replace property rights in an anarchist society. The tragedy of the commons is a statement directly about free for all and the lack of communal ownership. It is an argument for it.

"Property is the domination of an individual, or a coalition of individuals, over things; it is not the claim of any person or persons to the use of things -- this is usufruct [or possession], a very different matter. Property means the monopoly of wealth, the right to prevent others using it, whether the owner needs it or not. Usufruct implies the claim to the use of such wealth as supplies the user's needs. If any individual shuts off a portion of it (which he is not using, and does not need for his own use) from his fellows, he is defrauding the whole community." [Three Essays on Anarchism, p. 17]

What anarchists are you referring to do not think of communally managed resources? I am in Australia, and by far, here and in Europe, anarchists are struggling for libertarian communism, which is anarchism. Anarcho-syndicalism is a tactic toward achieving that.

As I stated, the worker recieves for their labour free access to the resources and surplus of the commune. What need is there to 'store' or ask for more than you need if you can get it anyway if you need it? Why would someone want 'property'? Property is theft.

BTW you are talking about marxist-leninist state communism. Totally different, your misunderstandings seem to be based in concepts of assuming hierarchical structures, whereas the whole concept is to abolish them.

Thanks for the reply Davo just a couple of things I guess I don't understand.

Is not the stated goal of anarchosyndicalism replacing capitalism with a self managed democracy of workers?

Well if so, democracy has crept in so we are back to a de facto state. Democracy is always rule the majority or it is not democracy. How would the will of this electorate then be executed?

And in your idea of the abolition of property runs smack dab into the Tragedy of the Commons. How do you propose to counter this?

This is the reason communism always fails, you cannot disregard personal self interest in creating social structures, which communism does.

And I disagree with your statment that "anarchists are communists (stateless communists)". Most anarchists I have met are not communists, maybe 30-40% were but that is not most by any measure.

So the eternal question when dealing with this issue is, what does the worker receive for his labor?

What if they are the only one that can repair a critical piece of infrastructure and they refuse unless they receive property, how would they be dealt with? I already know the communists handled these type of situations, so I would like to hear how your structure would over come this problem.

Habman, what are you talking about? How is anarchosyndicalism, the abolition of all state functions in the life of society, throwing 'anarchism' out of the window? You have to explain how the move from collectivism to socialisation through forming a system of free councils and federations within the anarchosyndicalist tactic creates a hierarchy.

It is not a rule of the majority, not sure where you are getting your information, and you seem to be coming across as a laissez faire capitalist.

You are also ignoring the time old phrase, that your rights stop where anothers rights start (for simplicity), so yes ownership of the 'fruits of your labour' depends on how you define that 'fruit', monopoly, centralisation and property/capital is another when that infringes on others rights. A free market economy (which you are hinting at I am pretty sure) will degenerate into capitalism, end workers' control and ownership and thus freedom.

It seems you are referring to property, as the fruits of ones labour.

As proudhon stated "instead of inferring from this that property should be shared by all, I demand, as a measure of general security, its entire abolition." from 'What Is Property?'

This is the reason most anarchists are communists (stateless communists), the product of your labour is free access to the resources and surplus of the commune.

Proudhon was referring to specific property, and you will find this is why I see you arguing for what is basically free market capitalism, the property you refer to is the 'product' of ones labour is access as stated previously, but referring to the means of production and to ownership of surplus, thus ownership of 'capital', you are directly referring to capitalism. 'Property' or 'capital' in this regard only becomes productive in the labor process when workers use it.

So you will have to define what you call fruits of ones labour, as you seem to be defining it as property.

"And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilized by labor--that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the works of someone else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both."